Video courtesy of Lonely Man Violine
Video courtesy of “Democracy Now”
Video Courtesy of Storm Clouds Rising
One of history’s most ironic statements was made by then president George W. Bush on September 20th, 2001. Addressing the world arena in a highly publicized address to a joint session of the House, he declares: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Once again, our contemporary Orwellian world is realized through Merriam-Webster’s definition of terrorism:
For example, the state uses violent acts of torture to extract a confession, which serves the political purpose of supporting the torturer’s narrative. Fear is the message received by both the gullible and the suspicious. The gullible accept the establishment’s fable and fear the purported enemy du jour. Those who suspect the reliability of a confession extracted through torture live in fear for a different reason. Anyone can be tortured into confessing anything.
Imagine if our country was the genuine recipient of an attack by rogue, extra-governmental outside invaders. If the state had a sincere desire to locate and prosecute the culprits, it would recognize the absurdity of using torture to achieve its end. In today’s reality, torture is a tool for propaganda aimed at promoting the official doctrine of state terrorists.
State torture is an act of terrorism. It adheres to the definition of terrorism unless the state throws that definition into the memory hole where the Bush legal team dropped a previous definition of torture.
Under the watch of George W. Bush, the U.S. Attorney General’s office attempted to legally sanctify the use of torture by introducing a variety of ‘permissible methods of interrogation’ in the wake of 9/11. Sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding were some of the techniques approved by the Bush administration’s legal counsel. Over a year ago, the Constitution Project released a 600 page report about detentions and torture since the 9/11 attacks. The project’s report clearly states “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and further elaborates about the extent to which torture was entertained in the Bush administration. While atrocities occurred in past wars, members of the Constitution Project have never before seen:
the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”
There was careful deliberation over political outcome of various torture atrocities after 9/11. Below is an illustration of those in the Bush hierarchy involved with the planning, justification, and execution of torture policies still in effect under the Obama Administration. If forensic evidence fails to overcome the cognitive dissonance of those who still believe the official explanation for 9/11, remind them of today’s suspicious, extreme measures used in the continual harvest of 9/11 patsies.
Although “Democracy Now” chooses to remain carefully oblivious to insider facilitation of the 9/11 attacks, they do have occasionally useful interviews.